Politics are divisive and reductive, and voters are squeezed into ill-fitting categories that rub, chafe, and restrict movement. The line between rural America and urban America is one that most presidential candidates straddle poorly, elevating the farmstead as true and authentic; and, on the flipside, rendering cities as elite and immoral.
For more on the town-country divide, check out this neat rumination on land use, demographics, and the election from the BLDGBLOG.
It would certainly be frustrating to think that a candidate doesn’t understand how a cattle ranch or an alfalfa farm operates, or that a candidate has no experience with a small town and its parent-teacher associations and so on β but it is extraordinarily troubling to me to think that a candidate doesn’t understand how, say, New York City functions β or Chicago, or Los Angeles, Miami, Boston, San Francisco, Denver, Seattle, Atlanta, or Phoenix β let alone the globally active and thoroughly urbanized economic networks within which these and other international cities are enmeshed.


Recent Comments
-
padikiller on
What Drives Public Opinion About Climate Change?
(13)
-
Jackie Najalack on
Park Slope Pundits Get the Story Wrong
(6)
-
Peteykins on
Harlan Ellison says: 'Pay the damn writer!'
(1)
-
Harris Meyer on
Some Mistakes at MoneyWatch
(2)
-
Edward Ericson Jr. on
Audit Notes: Payment Protection, Greek Austerity, Inflation Bugaboo
(4)
-
dwl on
Stories I'd Like to See
(1)
-
Mark Richard on
Bad Math From the WSJ Opinion Pages
(10)
-
Dan A. on
Nevada GOP Shows How Not to Conduct a Caucus
(2)
More